This section is intended to provide a background or context to the disclosure recited in the claims. The description herein may include concepts that could be pursued, but are not necessarily ones that have been previously conceived or pursued. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated herein, what is described in this section is not prior art to the description and claims in this application and is not admitted to be prior art by inclusion in this section.
Spinal implants are typically used to treat spinal injuries. Because of various circumstances such as injury, trauma, or the like, it becomes necessary to immobilize and/or reduce a fractured bone. One specific fracture is of the second bone in the cervical spine, which is referred to as a type II odontoid fracture. Various devices have been devised in order to accomplish treat the type II odontoid fracture, most notably an odontoid screw.
While the conventional odontoid screw systems are beneficial, there are several undesirable features of the currently available odontoid screw that is used for surgical stabilization of a type II odontoid fracture. First, the conventional odontoid screw relies solely on the power of the lag screw to reduce the fracture. Often, the lag screw itself lacks the ability to reduce such a fracture. Second, predicting the correct length of lag screw is extremely important, but also extremely difficult. If the odontoid screw is too short, the screw will not get bicortical purchase. Screws that do not have bicortical purchase have a much higher failure rate. If the screw is too long, the screw could injure the brainstem, or important vascular structures. This can have unwanted and undesirable consequences. With the current odontoid screw technology, it is very difficult to select the correct screw length prior to insertion as the current odontoid screws come in pre-cut sizes (e.g., 2 millimeter increments). Other forms of surgical stabilization for a type II odontoid fracture is to fixate and fuse C1 to C2, or occipital cervical fusion. Both of these options significantly reduce and restrict the patient's ability to move their head and neck.
Accordingly, in view of the above, it can be appreciated that it would be desirable to have a better device, method and manner of immobilizing and reducing a type II odontoid fracture